4.5 Article

Development and validation of the migraine screen questionnaire (MS-Q)

期刊

HEADACHE
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 1328-1338

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.00265.x

关键词

migraine; primary care; questionnaire; screening; validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. - To develop and evaluate the clinimetric properties of a new migraine screening questionnaire: the Migraine Screen Questionnaire (MS-Q). Background. - Migraine is a public health problem requiring screening programs and tools to ensure early detection. Methods. - A questionnaire was developed based on the criteria of the International Headache Society (IHS) and a review of the literature by a committee of experts. Stage I: The original version of the MS-Q was distributed by mail and completed by Pfizer employees and self-administered to neurological patients; all subjects were afterward evaluated by a neurologist who was blinded to the MS-Q results, to establish an independent IHS diagnosis. Stage II: A final version of the MS-Q was administered to neurological patients to confirm clinimetric properties. Logistic regression and receiver - operator characteristic curve statistical methods were used and the 95% confidence interval, sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, were estimated. Results. - Of the 605 subjects recruited, 465 were evaluable (325 in stage I and 140 in stage II). Of the original 15 items, 5 conformed the final version of the MS-Q: frequency and intensity of headache; a duration of between 4 hours and 3 days; nausea; sensitivity to light/noise; and disability. A cutoff point of >= 4 points showed a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.87 to 0.99), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI = 0.72 to 0.91), PPV of 0.83 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.91), and NPV of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.99). Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.82. Conclusions. - The MS-Q showed adequate validity and reliability, and it could be a good screening tool for application to clinical practice and research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据